1/72 Halifax B.Mk.III from Revell in 2015

[welkin77]

Why aren't we all jumping up and down with glee at this from Revell? We should be. I am (even as we speak!). Even as a test shot build, this is a modellers dream. It's what we've asked for for years. They've listened. It's not the mass market that's asked. It's us and our constant grumbling about the I/II. Just look at that surface detail-lovely!

It has a few areas we can already see, to indulge our enjoyment working at 'being more accurate than Revell sometimes'. Our self trained eye spots a stalky u/c a wide nacelle entry, a few windows to paint over and even a bit of work for a sanding stick on the mid uppers base?, -Great! We're going to have our individual fun with this and it looks well, well worth it.

But one thing I've long wanted to know. I've always thought of Airfix's H2S housing as being accurate in comparison to Revell's. Am I wrong?

......Whatever, no matter! Thanks Revell!

Edited February 2, 2015 by welkin77

[bbudde]

I agree generally. The most annoying mistake of the MK II were the far to fat merlins, who spoiled the whole appearance of the plane. This one looks much better and I think they put a new upper wing to that. I don't know, if they fixed the ailerons, but I don't bother on this. I cement them anyway in a neutral position and would engrave them new. The aftermarket will fix other things like the wheels or or the u/c. I don't know, if a Lancaster or a Stirling main wheel could fix it also. Or I take a resin copy from a Matchbox kit. Self fixing of the u/c is possible and not that serious. And I would wonder, if Airfix announce a new Halifax this year or the next. The propeller seems to be correct now for this version. The glasnose looks not too bad ( Indeed the one in the B-17 looks bad. They did a far better job in 1:48 35 years ago) A vacu canopy can fix this also and looks more realistic in 1:72 anyway on every plane. In any case they are far better than the Airfix or Matchbox ones. Finally The H2S: The Revell is wrong in shape I think, but it was also wrong on the old Airfix Halifax. On the Lancaster kit (old one) it looked correct and I haven't seen the new one. But you could reshape it either with minor problems This leads me to another question: Did they become obligatory on later bombers or can they be left off. To my eyes it always looks like a big ugly abcess on a plane. It's the same with the radar antennas on some german planes like the Fw 200 or the Ju 290 etc.. They spoil the sleek look on those planes. Enough said. All in all I'm happy and very pleased with the new offering as I know scale modelling in the 70's and 80's. So this is now the golden age of this hobby with all its possibilities ( cad made molds, new colours and materials, aftermarket, reference on the Internet with modern communication) and only few shortcomings ( mainly due to bad research by some makers) So I'm not that dramatical nitpicker, if the shape is mainly correct.

Edited February 2, 2015 by bbudde

[brewerjerry]

Are they THAT poorly built, Jerry?

I think I'll stay here in Neverland, thanks...

bob

Hi

No its just those who see my models have zero aircraft identification skills

its comical having a two or four engine aircraft identified as a spitfire

cheers

jerry

[Graham Boak]

We aren't jumping up and down with glee because we already did that when Revell announced a Halifax in the first place and look at what we got. It wasn't just too-wide engines, that was only a matter of a mm or so anyway, it was the entire shape of everything forward of the leading edge, and the sheer number of pieces were incorrect even elsewhere. So the response has been understandably subdued, but still generally welcoming none-the-less. That we should be over-excited about a kit that requires adaption and new pieces in so many ways - before any doubt over the new bits - seems a little odd. So it will still be better than the Airfix one - hoo ray! After fifty years...

[sloegin57]

You'll pardon the cynicism but I'm wondering if kit manufacturers sometimes deliberately put small errors into their products under the mistaken belief that we are modellers and not just builders.

Dennis

[Graham Boak]

Excuse my naivety, but it seems to me that the people who point out these errors are the very same ones who do indulge in modelling to correct them. As for the manufacturers, ask why others don't make simple errors that could be caught by anyone who actually looked at a few photos of the subject? Are people who make the laser-guided CAD-designed error-free (cough) Airfix kits any less modellers than those who plough weeks of work into reshaping (for example) Matchbox Halifax cowlings and propellers? Anyone else fancy a Unimodel MiG 7? Been there, done that (or still doing, in the case of the MiG), but I still make the new Airfix kits. Am I only a modeller on Tuesdays and Fridays?

There's two levels to this matter: Is it wrong? and What does it take to put it right? It rolls off the tongue easily enough that we can always replace the nose glazing with aftermarket, but what if there is no aftermarket? Yes, we can fill the wing and rescribe an aileron, but not without either losing a lot of detail or spending a lot of time. If you choose not to look at it, that's your choice and fine, but it doesn't make it right or desirable in a 2014/5 model. Just to look at the better part of the Revell tooling: we can fill in the lower fuselage for a fixed tailwheel, remove the unwanted Flight Engineer's seat, smooth the sharp corners of the asymmetry ahead of the cockpit, change the main and tailwheels for aftermarket: none of these take a lot of effort or skill but none-the-less add up to unwanted time and money. Then there's the two-abreast not 3-abreast bombbay - that does take rather more time and modelling nous adjusting the inner doors and actuators to make room - not too difficult, but again time gone by - and space left over in the bay. None of this couldn't have been right in the first place, and still left plenty of room for "modelling". Those marked-for but not provided inner wing bays, for example. A useful guide: it's a shame the White Ensign etched brass doesn't quite fit into the space but I suspect that's a relic of the kit they were designed for.

I did hear that Alan Hall used to put small errors into his plans to catch copyright thieves - much like the Ordnance Survey if slightly less likely. I rather doubt he ever did. It was likely just a story to explain the annoyingly common errors.

[Mr T]

Without straying too far from the topic, I do think that to say 'ah well it is only a little mistake, easily fixable etc, we should relish the challenge if we are modellers' is letting the manufacturer off the hook. Revell, Airfix, Trumpeter, Hasegawa etc. are companies that produce models as it is way of making money from a perceived demand and it is as easy to do a decent job as it to make errors that are easy to spot. I consider myself a reasonably competent modeller who over the years as modified kit, done a fair bit of scratchbuilding to correct or enhance kits. I am not afraid resin kits as I have a few under my belt as well as vacforms and biplanes also do not bother me, but I am not as young as i was and I am faced with a lot of aircraft i still want to build and uncertainty as to how long i have left to build them. With the huge improvments in design and detail on kits i really do not think that after 60 years or so of plastic kit design companies should be getting right more often than not. Revell I think is a particularly frustrating case as they can produce some ecellent and accurate kits when they want to.

[bbudde]

Back to the Halifax. I will wait to see the new sprues. Then I can and will judge on it a bit more. But what options do I have until now? If Airfix announce a new one for the next two years or so, I will wait for it. So many other kits I could build beforehand. And as a german with that somewhat german mentality I quote surely: If Revell only reworked the upper wing moulds, to fix it for the radial engines, the Merlin version of this will never be released again anymore. Too much (justified) criticism on that and I think it didn't sell well.

P.S.: Italeri's new Sunderland and Stirling will be as time consuming as the Halifax to get the surface details right and smooth. So I would also appreciate a new correct Airfix offering, although many say, that their panellines also seem to be too prominent.

[Graham Boak]

The original issue of the Merlin Halifax had more than enough gaps in the part number sequence for the Hercules variant. The representative at Telford made it clear that the extra runners were always in their intentions. Revell could release the Merlin Halifax again if they wished too - and may indeed as a Mk.V. As for expecting shame to drive them to modify the tools to replace the engines etc. - they might but I rather doubt it. Was that a pig I saw flying past my window?

It will be interesting to compare the part numbers to see if they do fill in all the gaps. At least the low average of accurate bits can be expected to rise.

[bbudde]

I guess:

Revell MK.V: Never ever, due to the mould flaws and that critism and general popularity here.

Airfix MK.V: New moulds with all variants: Probably due to popularity in England and Canada and somewhere in Germany or other parts of europe.

Edited February 3, 2015 by bbudde

[dogsbody]

The Revell kit already has the Dowty undercarriage legs in the box, so a Mk.V is possible.

Chris

[Byron Boyd]

I guess:

Revell MK.V: Never ever, due to the mould flaws and that critism and general popularity here.

More likely to the point:

Revell Mk V: Never, due to the apparent 'Two-variant' policy.

I would love to be proved wrong, but I can't think of any time over the last decade where Revell has released more than one variant of a major new-tool release. For example:

1/72 Type VII U-boat; later released Type VII/C40 variant

1/72 Type IX U-Boat; Type IX/C40 variant to be released later this year.

1/72 He 177A-5; later released in A-6 variant (when an A-3 would have been nice)

1/72 B-17G; later released in B-17F variant (and don't-you-know that a B-17E wouldn't really be a stretch...)

1/72 Ju 290A-5; later released in A-7 variant

1/72 Avro Lancaster BI/III; later released in Dambuster variant

1/72 Ju 88A-4; later released in C-6 variant (when most everybody would love to see an A-5 or even an A-1)

1/72 Halifax MK I/II; Mk III to be released later this year...

I agree with everybody that there could quite possibly could be sprues that would allow for more variations of each of these kits, but the historical data at hand would seem to indicate that there is some internal policy at Revell that limits them to producing no more than two variations of any particular kit. Compare this with, for example Hasegawa, who seem to produce literally endless variations of practically every new kit, be it F-4s, F/A-18s, Lancasters, B-24s, B-25s, Fw 190s, Ju 88s (except, of course, for an A-5 or A-1!!!), Bf 109s, Zeros, etc....

I tend to think that the criticisms may not factor that heavily into the decision-making criteria...

Byron

[bbudde]

Yes I agree to all those, except for Ju 88. Its the best one in 1:72. It sells well, because it has only two or three very minor mistakes to 100% nitpickers. For this one, I don't think Arfix could get it better. There could be more to come by Revell, but I'm not sure. For the german 2mots, I think Airfix will jump onto the Do 217 series, which would be cool anyway. Not that the Italeri were bad.

[johnny'be'bad]

And revell should scale this up to 48......would make me a happy bunny

[Graham Boak]

But the Revell Ju88 was initially released in 1/48th scale, and then scaled down to 1/72....

[bbudde]

Was it ? I don't know. I thought, it was a new mold on the 1:72 Ju 88. Not the 1:48 scaled down. That's for sure.

[Graham Boak]

Yes. That is said to be why it has so much more internal detail than normal for 1/72. There was only a couple of years between the releases. Either way, be happy, for the 1/48 is apparently every bit as good in its scale as the 1/72 (unsurprisingly).

[bbudde]

I'm very happy with the Ju 88. I just thought it was a new development There are more good big scale kits that should be downscaled.to 1/72.

[Heraldcoupe]

But the Revell Ju88 was initially released in 1/48th scale, and then scaled down to 1/72....

Revell's 1/48th Ju-88 is based on Dragon tooling, it has little in common with the 1/72 kit, sparse detail and numerous anomalies.

Revell's 1/32nd Ju-88 is the true ancestor of their newest 1/72 incarnation,

Cheers,

Bill.

[bbudde]

That's just, why there is so much to be downscaled to the friendly space saving scale of 1:72.

E.g.: Ar 196, Ju 52, He 162, 219, Do 217; Avenger and some other old AM kits etc.. The Ju 88 is obviously a downscaled 1:72 version of the 1:32 Revell release.

Edited April 13, 2015 by bbudde

[sloegin57]

According to Wonderland's site, available Saturday, 15th August, 2015 so looks like an early train south, pick up a few, back home for lunch, drool, build.

Next ! ..................

Dennis

[tempestfan]

I agree with everybody that there could quite possibly could be sprues that would allow for more variations of each of these kits, but the historical data at hand would seem to indicate that there is some internal policy at Revell that limits them to producing no more than two variations of any particular kit.

While this may hold true for the larger kits (to which of course the Halifax belongs), smaller ones often (well, sometimes at least...) get more than two versions, one case in point being the Sea King, which initially was released as a "naked" 41 KWS, then 41 with Sea Skuas, and finally as the HAS. 6/AEW. Generally, as far as I can see, their policy would seem to monitor sales, see when those have trickled down to a certain point/stocks have been exhausted, withdraw the kit for a sabbatical, and then re-release the variant. As sales for the larger and hence more expensive kits probably are slower, the intervals may be longer. I see no economically viable reason for them to confine themselves to two versions when they can do more without too much extra investment in the case that a kit has consistently sold well. They will have second thoughts even with the second version if a kit has sold badly. Judging by the amount of Venturas thrown on the market at the beginning of the year for the giant amount of 10 €, the kit cannot have sold all that well in Germany at least, so this may prevent any further versions for the time being. Which would be a pity, but then I bought nine of the basic PV-1 which should suffice for some time.

[bbudde]

Revells instruction sheet for the B III: http://www.revell.de/fileadmin/import/images/bau/04936_%23BAU_HANDLEY_PAGE_HALIFAX_B_MK.III.PDF

[tonyot]

Well it looks as if Revell have gone and looked at the restored Halifax in Canada and finally redeemed themselves,......hoorey!!! Strange how the instructions refer to the Mk.V and mention the Z Nose which s included on the clear sprue but don`t include the wings for the Merlin variant?

I`ll be buying quite a few of these,.......well done Revell,.....although I really do hope that you have re done the clear nose part!

Cheers

Tony

PS- Cheers for posting the link to the instructions!

Edited July 28, 2015 by tonyot

[Deve]

Those instructions are going to confuse people with references to Mk.V and an option for a VII but where the V parts aren't right for a VII....